Skip to main content

Full text of "Rapid Population Growth Consequences And Policy Implications"

See other formats

they may be concentrated in one part of the community-size hierarchy. Some writers give the impression that it is the rural areas that provide the great bulk
nf mien-ants: tn thp Isrcrp. ritip?
of migrants to the large cities
Stage Migration
However, there is another conception of the migratory process that would suggest a quite different pattern. I refer to the well-known stage (sometimes known as step) migration model. In its original formulation by Ravenstein (21) in 1885 and set forth as one of his "laws," it maintains that the direction of migration flows will be to successively larger places. Or as Taeuber (22, p. 95) has recently stated, "The stage migration process is one in which the aggregate shift from farms to large cities or suburbs is accomplished not by direct moves but by a series of less drastic movesó from farm to village, from village to town, from town to city, from city to suburb. Many persons participate in these successive displacements, but the typical individual manages only one or two stages in his lifetime."
This formulation carries a significant implication. It suggests that stage migration is an important social mechanism making the urbanization process more tolerable, for it means that migrants are not required to change their environment radically. Few villagers are called upon to go directly to the metropolis. Socialization to large-city life is carried out in progressive stages, with the movement from rural areas to metropolitan centers generally taking two generations or more.
The current evidence bearing on the stage migration model appears to be contradictory. The original study by Ravenstein was based upon the censuses of the United Kingdom. Taeuber finds good support for it in the United States in his study of residential histories for a large representative national survey. Herrick (23), reporting results of the CELADE study of migration to Santiago, Chile, does not directly test the model, but he does note that migrants come disproportionately from other urban places. Except perhaps for Chile, however, these countries are not classed as developing countries, and the evidence from developing countries is very thin. Caldwell (12, pp. 21-22) remarks that for Ghana step migration "has not been of great importance, particularly in recent times, in the Ghanaian rural-urban migration movement," but his findings on this point have not yet been published.
The Monterrey data do not support the stage migration model. Browning and Feindt (19) classified all migrants by last arrival to Monterrey according to their conformity to the model. They found that only 8 percent were in strict conformity; that is, their movement was always to the next largest community-size class. However, by relaxing the requirement to allow for movement to any larger size class (a leapfrog pattern), 42 percent had partial conformity to the model. But this still leaves one half of the migrants who the rural interview information was obtained about persons absent from the village. For further methodological details of the two studies see Caldwell (12, Ch. 1) and Balan, et al. (1 3, Ch. 1). Substantively, Ghana differs from Mexico in the predominantly male rural-urban migration, in the multilingual character of the society, in the existence of polygamy, and